Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

The Peace Presidents

May 7, 2007 6:36 pmMay 7, 2007 6:36 pm

On Feb. 8, 2004, George W. Bush proudly proclaimed to Tim Russert on “Meet the Press,” “I am a war president.” Like an 8-year-old playing with toy soldiers, Bush, an Air National Guard dropout, looked at war with vicarious enthusiasm. Contrast the attitude of the nation’s “peace presidents” – supreme commanders who led the nation to victory in the greatest wars the country faced: men who had experienced the grim reality of battle and wanted no part of it.

Ulysses S. Grant condemned war as “the most destructive and unsavory activity of mankind.” Surveying the carnage at Fort Donelson during the Civil War, he told an aide, “this work is part of the devil that is left in us.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower, another former general, was equally outspoken: “I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, as only one who has seen its brutality, its futility and stupidity…. War settles nothing.”

Both Grant and Eisenhower were elected with expectations that they would put a victorious end to conflicts in which the country was then engaged. Both presidents did end the fighting. But not in ways that their bellicose supporters anticipated.

In Grant’s case, the frontier was ablaze, and it was widely assumed that the general-in-chief who had bested Robert E. Lee would make quick work of the Plains Indians who were slowing the nation’s westward expansion. That bet was misplaced. Grant admired the integrity and lifestyle of Native Americans and ordered an end to the slaughter. He reined in Generals William Tecumseh Sherman and Philip Sheridan (who seemed bent on annihilation), dispatched a brace of “humanitarian generals” to the West, provided aid and comfort to entice the tribes onto reservations, and replaced corrupt Indian agents with Quakers. “Grant’s peace policy” – as it is called by historians – brought peace to Great Plains without racial genocide.

Twice more Grant faced down the hawks clamoring for war — first with Great Britain, then with Spain. British-American relations had not recovered from the Civil War for several reasons: Irish-American expatriates were conducting cross-border raids into Ontario; conflicting claims to fishing rights in the North Atlantic often resulted in bloodshed; a boundary dispute in the Pacific Northwest lay unresolved; and the unpaid claims from Union shipping losses continued to fester.

Grant rejected the possibility of a military solution, and with the cooperation of the Gladstone government in Britain, he submitted the issues to arbitration. This marked a breakthrough in the settlement of international disputes and paved the way for the Anglo-American accord that survives to this day.

The issue with Spain involved Cuba. Portions of the island were in revolt against Spanish rule, and American public opinion demanded intervention on the side of the rebels. Grant not only refused, but deployed the Navy to prevent American freebooters from joining the conflict.

In 1952, Eisenhower was elected with the expectation he would win the war in Korea. After the election Ike went to Korea, measured the situation firsthand, and concluded the war was unwinnable. Without hesitation he negotiated an armistice. After Eisenhower made peace in Korea, not one American serviceman was killed in combat during the next eight years.

Like Grant, Eisenhower believed the United States should never go to war unless national survival was at stake. He resisted calls for preventive war against China and Russia, reached out to the Soviet Union after Stalin’s death and slashed the Defense Department budget. He declined to take military action to defend the Chinese offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu, stepped aside when Hungary exploded in 1956 and refused to deploy American forces in situations that might lead to combat without Congressional authorization.

When the National Security Council – Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, Vice President Richard Nixon and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff – unanimously recommended the use of nuclear weapons at Dien Bien Phu to rescue the beleaguered French garrison, Eisenhower summarily rejected the proposal. “You boys must be crazy,” he told Robert Cutler, the national security adviser. “We can’t use those awful things against Asians for the second time in less than 10 years. My God.”

In 1956, when Britain, France and Israel colluded to invade Egypt, Eisenhower forced them to withdraw, toppling Anthony Eden’s government in London and threatening financial reprisals against Israel. That repudiation of what Ike called “old fashioned gunboat diplomacy” not only kept the peace but enhanced American prestige throughout the world.

George Bush and the neocons have no monopoly on glorifying military adventure. Madeleine Albright, President Clinton’s secretary of state, caused General Colin Powell a case of near cardiac arrest when she asked at a meeting of the National Security Council, “Why do we have an Army if we are not willing to use it?”

War is not an instrument of policy. It is an act of desperation. “Any course short of national humiliation or national destruction is better than war,” Grant told Prince Kung of China in 1879. “War itself is so great a calamity that it should only be invoked when there is no way of saving a nation from a greater [one].”

With this column in hand, the entire Congress ought to put an immediate end to the so-called “War in Iraq” and the spurious “War on Terror”–which is as insubstantial as a “War on Ignorance.”

May this reminder of what great generals did for our nation in the past encourage Congress to stand up to the perpetrators of the so-called “War in Iraq” and “War on Terror,” to stop funding these “Wars,” and to bring our troops home WITHOUT DELAY, according to the will of the VOTING public who brought the Democrats to majority in the House and Senate. The NON-VOTING public should have NO SAY in this matter.

Further, the will of the VOTING public to bring the WHOLE LOT OF CONSPIRATORS who brought us into these spurious “Wars” and the attrocities connected with them–such as violating the Geneva Convention and subverting our Constitution and the 2nd and 3rd branches of our government–to the dock for impeachment, and/or into detention to await trial as International War Criminals.

While I certainly agree with most of what was written, this part is taken out of context:

‘Madeleine Albright, President Clinton’s secretary of state, caused General Colin Powell a case of near cardiac arrest when she asked at a meeting of the National Security Council, “Why do we have an Army if we are not willing to use it?”’

You make it seem as if she said that in a casual way and fail to mention that it was said while discussing the war in Bosnia.

While I agree that pre-emptive wars based on false premises (Iraq) are reprehensible, the ongoing atrocities and genocide that were occurring in Bosnia were real and needed a military response.

Should the US use its military to invade, say, Canada, just because it can? Of course not.

Should the US have used its military to stop the worse bloodshed seen in Europe since WWII? Absolutely.

The US should also use its military to stop the genocide in Darfur.

Of course in all cases peace is the better option. However, when push comes to shove, sometimes a military response is required. Note, a response, not the first option.

We need more of this. No matter the context, Albright’s comment is reprehensible, and will be her legacy, along with her words “the price, yes, we think the price is worth it”, regarding the 600,000 or so excess deaths of Iraqi children resulting from the sanctions.

How can a person of sound mind be proud of proclaiming he is a “war president”? You are proud of some accomplishment in life, not an accomplishment that takes thousands of innocent civilians and 3000 plus of our servicemen/women.

Although John Kerry was far short of supreme commander as were Grant and Eisenhower he knew war first hand, had killed and been wounded and is recognized a hero for risking his life to save one of his men. I weep to think how different matters would be today if he, or for that matter Al Gore, took the office they rightfully won.

There is something to be said for being “secure” in one’s own skin: Grant and Eisenhower felt no need to prove their “manliness” to anyone; they had seen war up close and personal and had recoiled from its horrors. For them war was real, not something to be used to “prove your manliness.” Insecurity is a dangerous thing in regular human beings; it is a deadly flaw in leaders. Most objective Americans, the families of the casualties of this maddening war (Iraqis and Americans alike), and the rest of the world are now paying for the insecurities of a leader who is sadly incapable of admitting to his mistakes.

For someone like me who grew up in another country admiring the American ability somehow to come up with the right leader at the right time, the real question is: how can a country that produced the likes of Grant and Eisenhower (and other such magnanimous leaders) end up in this current tragic and embarrassing predicament? And how can we make sure it NEVER happens again?

What is interesting about the posting, is that in real time history, both Grant and Eisenhower were demonized. A campaign joke from the early 50’s went like this: Have you seen the new Eisenhower doll?… wind it up and for four years it does nothing… I’m not sure why I remember that so distinctly from my childhood, but I guess it struck me odd at age 6 or 7 that someone so loved and so admired could be slandered for the reason the writer here admires him.

As a child, I played with my toy soldiers and forts and cowboys and Indians. As an adult, I became a career Navy Physician and saw the physical, emotional and psychological results of three wars.
There is a big difference between knocking over a rubber soldier on your play mat and consoling a young man/woman who has lost both legs or any eye or her intellect. It is even worse to bury mangled and charred young bodies.
They say physicians bury their mistakes: This administration keeps burying this contries future and refuses to acknowledge its mistakes. It is worse than being an “out of touch kid” with his toy soldiers. It requires a truly deranged mind to continue this course of action.
I weep for the children, the parentsfor this country and Iraq. These wounds won’t heal.

It is a shame that we have a president who is no doubt ignorant of the wisdom of his predecessors who resisted unnecessary war and saw the national interest in avoiding it. What does it say about the American people that they could heave elected, and re-elected, such an immature and ignorant man?

Very good piece. I am new to the on line NY Times and enjoying it. Grew up in NJ in the 30s and 40s about 10-12 miles west of the Lincoln Tunnel so was influenced by the “big city”. Missed WWII by about 4 years so spent a little time serving during Korea. Interesting the article calls Truman a war President but cannot disagree although I often wonder what the Korean Peninsula would look like had we stayed out. There was never a reason to go after Iraq. Had we “stayed the course” in Afganistan and kept looking for Osama I for one am sure we would have founc him and probably within a year. It is very dificult to decide what to do now, but I’m certain this adminisatration will find a way to mess it up no matter the direction. Rove is telling “W” to keep at it so the successor will have to withdraw. Sad

Note that most of the comments quoted in the article are by military men who have first hand knowledge of the futility of war. People go to war to preserve the peace, but it never, no never, works. WW-II is the only useful war in the memory of our oldest citizens today. It was a war that sought us out. We couldn’t have avoided it. That should be the only criterian for going to war.

We would be far better off as a nation had we elected a mature, wise person as President, instead of the man that we did. A failure in all his previous endeavors, he brought to the White House only his miserably mediocre resume and singular lack of aptitude for anything save truculence. He lacks judgment, character, and a work ethic. We should also be mindful of the fact that he was intended to be a throwaway candidate in an election that at one time was felt to be a lock for the Democrats. Memory is short, but we have the prior administration as well as Ralph Nader to thank for the current incumbent. Their contributions were significant, even though they do not wish to acknowledge them.

The current wars in which we engage ourselves are not only unwinnable, with no good way out- only less bad ways- they are bankrupting the country and damaging the world economy. It is also evident that they are serving to enrich the small private sector that promoted them in the first place, but impoverishing the rest of us, both morally and financially.

Finally, I am a physician. We do not bury our mistakes; at least good physicians do not. What we often do, and I speak from long experience, is to think about our bad outcomes, whether or not we feel responsible for them, sometimes for decades after the fact. No general or admiral would daily set out for combat if they knew they were always fated to lose, yet every physician starts their day knowing that the final outcome for every person is the same. What we can cure, we cure, and when we can’t do that, we try to help better the patient’s life, longevity, and the qualities thereof. In our practical take on the world and acceptance of the ultimate inevitability of death, there is much the current Washington administration might profitably emulate- rather than trying to make the world over in an idealized and unattainable image unwanted by virtually everyone living in it, they ought to be seeking to make the world better for its citizens as they are.

History reserves its worst scorn for military commanders who sacrifice the lives of their troops for their own personal glory. Only a totally narcissistic person like George W. Bush could do so on such a grand scale. He will be vilified for decades to come, if not centuries. This will be his own personal little Hell, and he will deserve every minute of it.

This is just another in a long listing of anti-Bush propaganda masquerading as scholarship. To suggest that somehow George Bush revels in his role of wartime Commander in Chief and then to further liken it to a child playing with toy soldiers is just non-sense and believable only to the people to hate Bush already. I think Mr. Smith is the child on the playground guilty of piling on and trying to outdo the other kids with silly insults.

Response to the thoughtful query posed by no. 11,
Tunde Ogunnaike, we need to make sure everyone votes, every vote counts, and no other process intervenes in the results. Then you’ll see no more George Bushes and, hopefully, no Guilianis, McCaine, either of the Thompsons, or a Romney (talk about flip-flopping!). This country has what it takes to return to the caliber of the “Peace Presidents”; we just have to deglamorize war and somehow (I don’t know how) reduce our propensity to violence at all levels.
This wonderful column shows us the way back to civility at the national level. Thank you, Dr. Smith. Now we all need to find a way back to civility at personal levels.

In his “Personal Memoirs” Ulysses S Grant reflected on the wrongness of the Mexican War with these thoughts:
“The Southern Rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.”
Grant’s book is well worth the read.

Prof. Smith offers another great piece of writing, and he is absolutely right that no president should ever look forward to a war. American military forces must be used judiciously.

Unfortunately, as the comments reveal, liberals can’t decide which wars (if any) to support. If you agree with Prof. Smith, then American troops can never be put in harm’s way for anything less than national survival. If so, intervening to save thousands of lives (whether unilaterally or through NATO/the UN) in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Darfur is out of the question. Does that seem humanitarian — indeed, liberal — to you?